'Real risk' of UK Afghan defeat

[IndianaGreen]

Source: BBC News

Page last updated at 19:58 GMT, Saturday, 22 August 2009 20:58 UK

'Real risk' of UK Afghan defeat

A former Army commander says there is a "real risk" that Britain could lose the conflict in Afghanistan.

Col Stuart Tootal, writing in the Sunday Mirror, said a lack of political will could damage the military campaign against the Taleban.

Col Tootal who led 3 Para in Helmand in 2006, said the battle could be lost "in the corridors of power".

He also said Britain and other Nato allies had to send additional troops to Afghanistan if they were to succeed.

Col Tootal said that if the conflict was lost "it will not be in places like Helmand, but in the corridors of power in cities like London and Washington.

"Counter-insurgency conflicts are rarely lost by the fighting troops, but in the arena of domestic public opinion when there is a lack of the political will to make the right commitment to see them through."

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8216497.stm

[Ghost Dog]

1. "lack of political will"

Better militarise public opinion (in a so-called democracy) then, general, sir.

.

[Solly Mack]

2. yeah yeah...the people wouldn't let us win

[mix]

3. A window into the military mind...

...never mind the cultural impossibilities of the NATO-Anglo-American occupation, which alone will prevent any military "victory", as much as many on the left and right fantasize...

It's always someone else stabbing the noble warriors in the back, not the failure of the military and its policies.

[IndianaGreen]

4. At the end of the Great War, German generals claimed they had been stabbed in the back

rather than admit that they were responsible for Germany's defeat. The troops were welcomed home as heroes by a population not having a clue that Germany had lost the war. Those that had seen the horrors of trench warfare knew that no one had won.

[tocqueville]

6. not comparable

it was not counter-insurgency and Germany was imploding BECAUSE of the War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend

And the pacifist attitude after WWI (due to the tremendous losses) in France and the UK were one of the key factors for the defeat 1940.

If you let the Taliban win, you'll adore the next war with nuke armed Islamic Caliphate of Afganistan-Pakistan....

[mix]

7. your citation undermines your claim

Use in American context

In June 2006, in an article published in Harper's Magazine, journalist Kevin Baker extended the use of the phrase and applied it to the right-wing in politics in the United States:

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.<6>

Baker claims that the American right-wing has invoked the stab-in-the-back myth on numerous occasions, most recently in the War in Iraq, but also notably at the end of the Vietnam War as well, when the homefront anti-war movement and their sympathizers in the mass media were frequently blamed for the U.S. losing the will to win the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend

Letting "the Taliban win," is that really the only alternative?

[ima_sinnic]

11. can't you see you're needed over there? don't "let the Taliban win" ferchrissake!!1!!!

since as you indicate in another post it isn't "colonialism" but something else you apparently strongly believe in, you need to put your money where your mouth is.

[tocqueville]

5. the General is absolutely right

and it applies to France too even if we don't have their equipments problems.

At least France will double its participation next year but half of it will be through Enduring Freedom, that is to say naval based air support.

Here the debate is completely fucked up by the socialists eternal mantra of "colonialism".

"Counter-insurgency conflicts are rarely lost by the fighting troops"

historically it's one in ten.

[mix]

8. And the Socialists are right, it is colonialism,

neo-colonialism. Your "Tocqueville" handle suits you.

[mix]

9. For you, le petit soldat

[BOG PERSON]

10. Wouldn't be the first time! n/t